Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

Is there something specific that gay people get from gay marriage that they dont get from a civil union? Or is it just that gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted by the mainstream?

These questions have been fully addressed.

There is nothing about 'wedge issues' or Darfur in the opening post and, frankly, to try to convince the readers that your intent was not to gay-bash, but to bring light to the current situation in Darfur is laughable and pathetic.

Your 'wedge issues' are at the top of another person's 'top priority'list. Everything is relative; you want to discuss the tragedy of Darfur? Start a thread about it--don't pretend to be something you are not.

Here is two reasons not to legitimize them.According to a study homosexuals have done themselves. 75 % have admitted to having sex with minors.According to a study conducted by the centers for disease control homo sexuals average 5oo partners. The seem to get more active once they come down with aids be cause the average for aids infested homosexuals is 1000.

Marriage between a man and a women is the best way to raise children. Homosexuals seem to become predeters of the young.And unfortunately a religion institution was adopted by the non -religious who in turn made a farse out of it.In time with legitimizing homosexuality pedephilia will also be legitimized. We already have one such group working on that.For you that are niave to doubt that. #0 years ago we would have never had this debate. Now we are running as fast as we can to become the nation of the damned

Here is two reasons not to legitimize them.According to a study homosexuals have done themselves. 75 % have admitted to having sex with minors.According to a study conducted by the centers for disease control homo sexuals average 5oo partners. The seem to get more active once they come down with aids be cause the average for aids infested homosexuals is 1000.

I'm going to have to call you out on that one. Please cite your sources.

Marriage between a man and a women is the best way to raise children. Homosexuals seem to become predeters of the young.

Paedophilia is hardly something that is unique to homosexuals. There are many straight people who have committed crimes against children. However that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about two consensual adults deciding to spend their lives together.

In time with legitimizing homosexuality pedephilia will also be legitimized. We already have one such group working on that.

Are you serious? How successful has this group been? If you ask me, the laws against sexual predators has become a lot more severe. Again, I am going to point to the countries I mentioned in the last post. How many of those places is Paedophilia legal? Oh yeah, you still forgot to tell me what bad things have happened there.

For you that are niave to doubt that. #0 years ago we would have never had this debate.

You're right, 40 years ago we were debating allowing miscegenation. People with your mindset, all predicted that our society will crumble. It's been 42 years since Loving Vs. Virginia, and we're still here.

Ed, I believe your first mention of Darfur was on page 2, message 33... We are not as foolish as you ostensibly are, this post is/was not a conversation about civil unions vs. more pressing issues. It was a post attacking homosexuals' fight to acquire the same legal rights and recognition that heterosexuals have--under the guise of being a post "questioning" the difference between civil unions and marriage. Whatever your "true purposes" of this thread were, you forgot to mention them until halfway into the thread. So it seems you get just as easily distracted by the issue as those you accuse.... Not only that, but, even now, you fail to see how poorly and ineffectively you communicate in this "day of Communications." Instead, you, again, try to accuse everyone else of "missing the boat", when you're the one that's miles and miles inland.

Discrimination is no insignificant problem, even if it pales in comparison to genocide. Slavery isn't quite as bad as genocide, but does that mean that if there was legal slavery in America that it shouldn't be a concern for us because there are more pressing matters elsewhere in the world?

And some of the world's biggest atrocities started with simple restrictions and discrimination--the Holocaust, for example--which is another reason why it's important to nip those problems in the bud before they escalate to great extremes like the issues you're saying need more attention. Discrimination that's protected and, indeed, encouraged by law helps escalate individual hate into wide-scale hate-fests.

People have posted the legal rights of those in a civil union. The list was exactly what you asked for in the OP, but apparently, you weren't actually curious... It's obvious that you already knew how you felt, because you had a rebuttal for every answer someone had to your question. If you think the difference is all semanics, then you're right. If you study the language used to outline the rights of those in a civil union, you will see that there is a clear difference in what rights they have... and that they are different and more restrictive than what heteros get when they marry. If you want to have a logical conversation, you have to be able to understand logic.

and Wboydsp: how is it that the homosexuals are shoving their lifestyles down your throat? Nobody's forcing YOU to be gay, or to to marry another man, or even to censor your opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter anyway. In the end, the constitution will win out over ignorance, hate and prejudice.... just as it has done time and time again. So get used to it.

John Adams- "We have no government with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The people who gave us our constitution would never have given the right to same sex marriage. So gay marriage can in no way be a constitutional right.

<div class="quote"> The people who gave us our constitution would never have given the right to same sex marriage. So gay marriage can in no way be a constitutional right.

The people who gave us our constitution owned slaves, and believed that the only people who should have a say in our government are white males who owned property. While they did have many good ideas you can not base modern day civil rights issues solely on what the founding fathers believed.

Let me give you a personal tip mate. You should just focus on living your life, and not worry about gay marriage so much. When you rant against gay weddings and make up facts to support your backward ideas you only succeed in making yourself look like a bigot.

The people who gave us our constitution would never have given the right to same sex marriage. So gay marriage can in no way be a constitutional right.

The constitution states that those powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the individual states. IOW, it's an issue to be decided by each individual state if we're to look at things constitutionally, since the constitution makes no mention of marriage and the federal government.

John Adams- "We have no government with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The people who gave us our constitution would never have given the right to same sex marriage. So gay marriage can in no way be a constitutional right.

When speaking/writing about the U.S. Constitution, capitalize it.

What is 'moral' is subjective.

You cannot begin to know what the Founding Fathers would have done with regard to same-sex marriage. In fact, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, at all.

The people who gave us our constitution would never have given the right to same sex marriage. So gay marriage can in no way be a constitutional right.

This is an incorrect statement. Although the specific right of Same Sex marrige between Americans is not expressed in the Consitution, the 9th Amendment [ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ] can be argued to include this Right.

If it is argued that it is not, then the Supreme Court can rule otherwise...And Even if the Court rules that this is not a Right garraunteed by the Constitution, the Constution itself, can be Amended by the People to make it an Constutional Right.

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross

Must be some kind of reasoning for most of the world to recognize the male/female concept of the word.

As for the marriage, it was put so nicely earlier - make everything a civil union and let those who want it blessed by their religious institution do so. This in no way forces people to approve of homosexuality, it simply allows all citizens the same rights under the law and forces some citizens to stop trying to keep those rights strictly for themselves.

Oh, I LOVE the dictionary!!!! Especially when it comes to defending the word "marriage", since the dictionary clearly crumbles the arguments of those who say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

I don't think that was r90sboxer's intent, though... his comment suggests he only read the first definition and disregarded the rest... or maybe I misunderstood? Anyway, thanks for posting that!

And thanks jackie78... likewise in your post! It just drives me nuts that such a SIMPLE, morally correct (even perfect ?), solution hasn't been carried out yet. Hopefully soon.

What specific rights are they being denied?It can be arranged for anyone to come see you in the hospital.You can leave your money and possesions to anyone you want after you die. Is it that important for a man to take on the title of wife, Or a woman to take on the title of husband?Or do people who have MORAL objections to your indecent sex practices, have to be forced to subsidize and legitimize what goes against thier conscience.Should we allow a man to marry his pet dog? Where do we draw the line?

So, where are the people fighting for the rights of the poligymous. If this is a civil rights issue , so is that. Except the people fighting for this supposed Right, would be dead set against making it a right for a man to have more than one wife. I am against both practices. Just saying.

The people finding all these Constitutional rights for same sex marriage need to go find Bin Laden. They can find anything. Even things that don't exist, except in people's wishes.

There is no 'right' to marriage in the Constitution, but there is a validation of the same in our society. Same-sex couples want that same validation--not a civil ceremony, but a marriage in name and on paper.How would you be subsidizing same-sex marriage?

excuses. I have seen nothing legitimate in the arguments for legalized perversion.

And you never will--wanna know why? Because you are convinced of your moral superiority and nothing posted here, or anywhere, will ever pass for being a legitimate reason for legalizing same-sex marriage for you.

This thread was an excuse for you to have a tantrum--you were never interested in understanding the other side of the issue you raised.

OP -- I think most of it has to boil down to two camps...the religious camp and the employer camp.

In the religious camp, they are refusing to acknowledge the marriage as just that...a marriage. They have agreed at least partially to accept it as a civil union, but will fall shot of declaring it a marriage. They use their religious overtones and pandering to get the desired result which is little more than shaded bigotry and prejudice. All because someone, many moons ago, decided to define marriage as the union between man and woman.

In the employer camp, 99% of benefit plans are worded in such a way as to reflect a "spouse" or "common law" partner as being one of the opposite sex. So in order to qualify for your partner's benefits and perks, you need to be "married". Declaring the marriage as a civil union instead allows employers their much needed loophole to prevent or disqualify people from attaining any part of the benefits and perks to the partner because they are same sex, and not "married" as defined by man and woman.

Broken down again in even simpler terms...the 2 camps are political, and financial. Those are the reasons for the differences between marriage and civil union.

As a side note to those that have mentioned Canadian law...I'm no Lawyer, but having spent so much time with them, there's a couple things to note. First off, it used to be 12 months living together before one was considered "common law" and thereby married, but this again only applied to opposite sex couples. This has now been afforded the benefit of accepting same sex as well. The change to the rules to see it at 6 months is not unilateral, but province by province. Another key element is that if there are kids involved, and the couple (same sex or not) lives together, they are automatically now considered common law. No waiting involved. I've seen it happen, so don't bother arguing the point.

And as for divorces requiring a 1 year cooling off period...poppycock. What you all may be referring to is one of the 3 reasons that a divorce will be granted...first reason is THE COUPLE NO LONGER LIVES TOGETHER AND A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR HAS PASSED, or there was adultery, or there was abuse. Those are the 3 reasons that can be cited for a divorce to proceed. See below:

Do I need a reason to get a divorce?

To get a divorce, you will have to show that your marriage has broken down. The law says marriage breakdown has occurred if:

-- you and your spouse have lived separate and apart for one year with the idea that your marriage is over; or-- your spouse has committed adultery and you have not forgiven your spouse; or-- your spouse has been physically or mentally cruel to you, making it unbearable to continue living together. Cruelty may include acts of physical violence and those causing severe mental anguish.

You can get a divorce if one of these situations applies to you.

There is no "cooling off" period required. You may be mistaking the 1 year separation as such...but it's not a requirement at all. It's just one of the ways to get a divorce proceeding. That snippet was taken right from the Canadian DOJ.

I know some states in the US *require* a "cooling off" period before you can apply, but this is an actual requirement whereas ours is not.

Afterall, we don't want to lose sight on what it is we're talking about here. God knows it's my business knowing what you sick fracko's do between the sheets at night. As far as i'm concerned, if you're too "normal" something MUST be wrong with you... therefore, I think you should lose your right to vote. AND only be given access to food once every 3.2 weeks....it stands to reason that you must be allotted different rights from the rest of "us"